Multiple LBBC's

TeddyRascal

Hello,

I am new to the forum and have over the last month or so reviewed many threads and posts with respect to Car Parking Partnership correspondence (who I realise is Parking Eye). I am however unable to locate discussions similar to my current situation (or rather my partner's situation as I am researching this on their behalf), hence the new thread - please correct me if this should be posted elsewhere.


Here is a summary of the situation:

NHS operated car park which Parking Eye then took over, this is when the PCN’s started. Vehicle parked on each occasion without the purchase of a ticket as it was possible to do this in certain zones prior to Parking Eye (note that car park users were always supposed to purchase a ticket prior to Parking Eye management, regardless of the zone).

Alternative parking is now in place but there is a period of at least 6 weeks that no ticket was displayed, causing a backlog of PCN’s. Two of the PCN’s have now turned into LBCC’s as the initial PCN’s and warnings were ignored. Having read up on the forum I am aware that if the PCN's were to be appealed then this should have been instigated earlier in the process - unfortunately I am picking this up a bit late. I am seeking guidance having read some great advice distributed in a variety of scenarios here but as explained earlier I haven't come across an instance quite like this, in which there are multiple PCN’s and LBBC's with no ticket having been displayed (note more LBCC’s are likely to arrive).


I'd appreciate any helpful input here, I can think of a few possible routes:

- Pay the backlog of PCN’s

- Submit an SAR via the Parking Eye website to cover all PCN’s and email Parking Eye in an attempt to stop proceedings.

- Following the SAR and email… draft a defence highlighting inadequate signage along & with flaws in correspondence.


Locations and any potentially identifiable information has been left out for obvious reasons – any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

The_Deep

do not pay PE a penny unless ordered to by a judge. IMO their signs are incapable of forming a contract, read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Coupon-mad

It's Car Parking Partnership, not ParkingEye (even though they are connected). So don't go trying to do things on the P/Eye website!

CPP have their own, with a Privacy Enquiry form:

https://www.carparkingpartnership.co.uk/privacy-policy/

Can you also edit your first post and title to remove 'ParkingEye' as it will confuse us.

What are the NHS Trust doing to rescue their poor staff from these PCNs?

How loud a noise has been made by the staff and Union, who should be ALL OVER THIS if I am reading this right, that the rules have changed about 3 times in recent months and this staff member has been caught out by a lack of parking provision in a 6 week period, despite paying the NHS Trust for a permit?

If the keeper is a different person from the driver, then consider naming the driver (and postal address) to rewind the clock, so the driver can appeal them all.

TeddyRascal

Thank you, I have modified the title to avoid confusion.

Apologies for not making a few things clear in my original post. Firstly the driver does not pay the NHS Trust for a permit, they are on the waiting list for a permit but this is a lengthy process.

I don't believe that the rules themselves have necessarily changed but since the switchover in car park control to CPP there has been a significant uplift in action and issue of PCN's.

I should also highlight that the NHS car parks in question are pay and display (pay on exit) but due to a lack of barrier restriction at certain times it is possible to enter and leave without payment - of course this is something that regular staff are well aware of and given the daily rate I'm not too surprised that this happens.

In short, the PCN's are the result of purposeful non payment over a period of time which of course doesn't assist with a defence but having read this forum I am wondering if there is an alternate avenue to explore such as inadequate signage as The Deep suggests.

We are approaching the 30 day deadline on the first received LBCC so I am planning to act soon - Is the above approach of submitting an SAR and accompanying email the most logical step at this stage? Again as previously said so far two LBCC's have been received and more are expected given the paper trail.

Thank you.

KeithP

You urgently need to delete that sentence starting "In this instance..." from you most recent post.

To understand why, read post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

TeddyRascal

OK thanks, done.

Coupon-mad

I should also highlight that the NHS car parks in question are pay and display (pay on exit) but due to a lack of barrier restriction at certain times it is possible to enter and leave without payment - of course this is something that regular staff are well aware of and given the daily rate I'm not too surprised that this happens.

The staff need to all do this each day to avoid the scam:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75884448#Comment_75884448

You do not have to hand over your data on a plate when leaving private land. Not even if you work there, I doubt their employment contract says 'you must display your numberplate when passing the cameras'!

I am wondering if there is an alternate avenue to explore such as inadequate signage as The Deep suggests.

Yes but I'd concentrate the legal argument more 'forbidding' signs, specifically (prohibiting parking by non permit holders, not allowing parking as a licence agreed under contract).

...and secondly that any driver without a permit is only a trespasser at best and only the NHS Trust could pursue a case under tort, for damages (see PACE v Lengyel, in the Parking Prankster's case law pages - read t!).

TeddyRascal

Thank you and noted reference the giving up of data when leaving private land - I shall pass this on.

I have read the PACE v Lengyel case as per your advice and I plan to return to the location and obtain photographs of all present signage, along with a clear shot of the terms so that I can analyse the details of this to aid the writing of a defence.

I now need to act on the two received LBCC's so will submit a SAR to cover all PCN's and send an email in an effort to prevent this going any further. I will update in due course.

Thanks again.

TeddyRascal

Hello,

I have returned to the location in question to gather photographs of the signage and would very much appreciate any thoughts on the signage wording if possible.

At the entrance to the car park there are two signs, the first reading as follows:

ANPR CONTROLLED CAR PARK
No Ticket Required
Please see signs in each car park and payment machines for payment method


The secondary sign at the entrance reads:

PATIENTS AND VISITORS ONLY
Tariff Payable at machine or by phone
This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms and conditions


Finally the T&C’s sign is dotted around the vicinity, with the key points being:

PARKING TARIFFS APPLY
PARKING CONTRACT
Please note that this land is privately owned
(List of parking times/charges and pay by phone details)

Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

NO PARKING ON PAVEMENTS OR GRASS VERGES
PARK WITHIN MARKED BAYS
BLUE BADGE HOLDERS – TARIFFS AND ALL TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY. YOUR BLUE BADGE MUST BE DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES
NO PARKING ON YELLOW LINES/HATCHED AREAS

Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of £100

(SMALL PRINT AT BOTTOM)

ParkingEye LTD trading as Car Parking Partnership (“CPP”) CPP is authorised by the landowner to operate and manage this private car park for and on its behalf. Certain parking terms and conditions apply, which are set out within this notice (the “Parking Contract”). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this car park, you agree to comply with the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details via the payment and/or terminals. If you fail to comply with the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified on this notice (the “Parking Charge”). If a Parking Charge becomes due, a reduced payment option will be available for a specified period from issue. Failure to pay within this period will result in the full amount becoming payable. If the Parking Charge remains unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further action may apply. The Parking Contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties and any variation of the terms shall not be valid unless confirmed in writing by CPP. Please note that CPP is no responsible for the car park surface, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles, or general site safety. In addition to the Parking Contract please see privacy information below.


*****

Based on the contents of the signage I am thinking to request sight of the contractual agreement between the landowner and CPP which authorises CPP to engage into contracts with users of the car park. Also there is no mention on the signage of CPP’s power to authorise parking on the land and if this doesn’t form park of CPP’s contract with the landowner there would be no contractual benefit to users of the car park (two points raised in the PACE v Lenygel case).

As explained above there are two signs at the entrance to the car park, one of which highlights that the car park is private property and it also reads ‘see signage for terms and conditions’ – at this stage, on entering the car park there is no mention of a contract, just reference to the terms on the signage – so a user would have to find a space and then view and absorb the contents of the signage, which during busy periods could easily take longer than the 10 minute free allowance that is offered - essentially meaning that once the 10 minute free period passes the user is automatically engaged in a contract that they haven't had the opportunity to review the terms of.

Given the above, is the best solution to submit these points and reinforce that at worst a non-paying car park user would be trespassing which is a matter for the land owner to pursue?

With respect to forbidding signage I am conscious that the term ‘contract’ is referenced at the top of the main signage and within the terms and that this was not the case in PACE v Lenygel - is there still an angle here?


Any input in this area would be greatly appreciated,

TeddyRascal

I just realised that I missed the privacy information that is present at the very bottom of the sign - I've also noticed that it doesn't state that they will contact the DVLA to obtain registered keeper details, there is no mention of the DVLA at all in fact.

Here is the small print:

Privacy information - when you use this car park, CPP collects and processes certain data in order to ensure that you are complying with our terms and conditions and to enforce these where necessary. We also use the data for car park management. This will include, for example, reporting on vehicle turnover and repeat visits in order to improve the customer experience. The data we collect comprises images of vehicles using the car park and/or the Vehicle Registration Mark. This is collected via Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and/or attendants on site, as well as via payment machines and terminals. We may share data from time to time as required to support the purposes stated above. When collecting the data specified above, CPP is the Data Controller. For more information, including details about your rights as a data subject, please visit our website at (URL path to privacy policy) Alternatively, you can email us at privacy@carparkingpartnership.co.uk or contact us by telephone on 0333 1235 982.

TeddyRascal

I have now compiled a SAR, and email ready to send off soon.

The email covers the following core points:

Requested sight of agreement between CPP and land owner with authority to form contracts on the land and the right to authorise parking so as to formulate a contractual benefit to the car park user.

Poor signage at car park entrance - the 'Entrance sign' is located further into the car park and another sign relating to ANPR is at the point of entry, with no reference to terms and conditions or a contract.

Unrealistic grace period of 10 minutes given the busy nature of the car park (not really applicable to this case but a definite weakness in the operation here).

Privacy notice on the signage is vague and does not mention sourcing data from the DVLA - car park users cannot be expected to view the full policy online at the point of parking.


Any advice, guidance or additional points to include from the above signage content would be very much appreciated.

Thank you.